Boards

Interesting piece here about the IAAF and their decision regarding a female sprinter who naturally produces testosterone at a level which has been previously been decided to offer a competitive advantage. Raises a lot of issues about fairness and how we classify athletes.

it reminds me a bit of Jones vs. Cormier where both athletes exhibited testosterone levels that were actually lower than average, it's interesting that, that has never really (bar the controversy over TRT) been brought into consideration as far as male athletes are concerned.

The 'range' of test production varies quite dramatically, and every elite male athlete will most likely have a very high natural level to start with ... that's how genetics, skill and achievement compound over time to produce professionals...

Is that fair? should all athletes be able to dope up to a certain set level, meaning any performance difference would be based on hard work, technique etc ?

Also, many men would fall under the allowed test level for female athletes quoted in the article, should they be allowed to compete alongside female athletes?

We certainly have a messed up idea about these things, leaving aside the fact that 99% of all athletes in any sport are 'doping' in one way or another.